Reddit reviews Film Form: Essays in Film Theory

As that asshole who posted that thing, I...

A. Narcissistically think it's awesome that you're asking this question. Mostly because I asked this question, and I honestly enjoy film more because of it. I disagree completely with the idea that when one understands art more it's thus more difficult to enjoy it.

B. Literary theory is helpful with many films, especially the more standard ones. It becomes less helpful when we get into more avant garde cinema, but either way, I think it's a great jumping off point but one should preferably support the analysis that has been framed in Literary terms via Cinematic ones, because that's where the evidence to support your theory actually lies.

C. Here are my bullet points of advice, in the interest of economizing information:

• Read some books on film theory. A really good place to start is with the work of Bordwell & Thompson, which is pretty standard practice for film students. That will give you a rudimentary and foundational vocabulary through which you can begin understanding film better, and often that's the problem is not knowing what to look for.
  
  
• If you can, try to talk about film as much as you can with people who know more than you. I meet for drinks regularly with a former professor and screenwriter who has done more in the industry than most and is one of the smartest people I know. I can keep up with him, but he's clearly way ahead of me as he should be. I've learned and figured out specific films almost as much just talking out ideas with similarly informed people, as just sitting there watching them or reading about them.
  
  
• Read up on a wide variety of topics, specifically philosophy, art theory and psychology as well as perhaps some science, anthropology and history. Find fields with which you are really fascinated by. Those who are interested in physics, determinism or analytic philosophy will look at and interpret film in a different way than others, I'd imagine they may be heavily structuralist and influenced by the Soviet Montage school in their own work, for instance. Someone else more interested in history and science may approach film from a sociological perspective as well as subscribe to some interesting ideas such as Jean Epstein's theory that film breaks the space time continuum. Me, myself, I'm really fascinated with psychoanalysis and abstractly cosmic concepts, things that cut to the core of human experience, and couldn't care less about free will or analytics because I don't see how they change anything phenomenologically. So it would make sense that I'm drawn to surrealism, and analyze film is a post-structural, Lacanian way, as well as drawing much of my support for interpretations from the semiotic aesthetics when I can.
  
  
• Write stuff. Often I don't figure out a movie until I start writing, and then it just sort of comes out fully formed much of the time. If you have a blog send me a link too, I'd like to see it. Anyway.
  
  
• Once you've determined your points of interest it will be easier to decide who to read/watch next but I find these ones were the most enlightening for me. So if you like what I said about my own viewpoint above, they will help, and I'll include some things that are standard that I don't prefer but am glad I read as well.
  
  Christian Metz will teach you about how film communicates information through non-verbal aesthetics. If you want to understand how to analyze film via a non-literary perspective, this is where to start.
  
  Hugo Munsterberg is the father of most film theory. Oddly, he doesn't seem to like movies very much, but the book has some very relevant information on the interaction between film and spectator, that is essential (assuming a relatively modern approach at least. I suppose a formalist wouldn't care too much about the meaning of the film itself and thus the relationship wouldn't matter).
  
  Slavoj Zizek has a lot of books on cinema, but also his documentary "The Perverts Guide to Cinema" is one of the most entertaining, as well as informative looks at film I've seen. It doesn't really address aesthetic elements as well as take a Lacanian look at why certain scenes provoke the reactions they do or what they mean, but I think that if one combines this psychological perspective with the understanding of how juxtaposition of elements conditions the viewer as evidenced by a lot of Soviet Film Theory, one can figure out the mechanism of how these meanings are being communicated. Also here's an interesting more structural take on Zizek that I've read.
  
  I don't find it necessarily essential to my own views, but Sergei Eisenstein has a lot of really interesting work, and his books use a lot of synonymous examples in other art to illustrate how film works differently from theater and other narrative form. It also breaks down the Soviet Montage theory better than almost any other work.
  
  Another essential book for many that I'm not a huge fan of yet I'd still say is pretty important to read is What Is Cinema by Andre Bazin
  Dude loves movies and is pretty enlightening for many people I just disagree with a lot of his ideas of how film should best be made.
  
  Andrew Sarris is a relatively important guy for understanding American film criticism. He and Pauline Kael warred for a while, and I think Pauline Kael is a blowhard ignoramous who never actually said anything relevant or informed about movies. People love her though, probably because she was an entertaining writer, and she was influential. But anyway, Sarris was the one who brought auteur theory, the dominant theory of understanding filmmaking today, to America from France.
  
  An interesting look at directorial style and authorship is Martin Scorese's "A Personal Journey Through American Movies". It's not comprehensive or detailed, but it will not only show you some great classical era films to look up, but he has a unique idea of the director as filling one of four roles, storyteller, illusionist, smuggler and iconoclast. As a side note, I think Scorsese sees himself as a Smuggler, and attempts to be much more so in the wake of his reaching iconic status. For a much more challenging work of film criticism from a director that is still alive, check out Histoire(s) du Cinema by Jean-Luc Godard.
  
  Finally I'd say Tom Gunning, who I actually met once and was fascinating to listen to, is pretty important. He's mostly focused on early film, and the development of how a film communicates narrative. He will illustrate some interesting things on spacial reasoning and editing and how logical information is communicated. For instance now in film you know which character is on the left by giving him some negative talk space in close up on the right, and when a character leaves frame on the right they enter the next from on the left if one wishes to maintain continuity of space, time and setting. Also his cinema of attractions theory is pretty interesting and explains exactly why people go watch Michael Bay movies, as well as elucidating the mentality of film-goers in the pre-Griffith era.
  
  Also, look around the web. Some places like Slant.com, RogerEbert.com's essays and blogs sections, or Mubi.com occasionally have some really interesting stuff. Also there are random blogs around that do really enlightening work (like mine! shameless self promotion aside, if you want it I'll send it to you but I'm not gonna be that douche) that I sometimes stumble across.
  
  Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification, and good luck!

It's cool to see actual Film Theory and Criticism in a Youtube video and not just topical bullshit.

If this piques your interest, and you really want to slog through some serious shit, here are collected readings:

Theory of Film by Siegfried Kracauer

What is Cinema by Andre Bazin

Film Form: Essays in Film Theory by Sergei Eisenstein

And the most difficult: Film Language: A Semiotics of The Cinema by Christian Metz

I'll leave this as an informal AMA if anyone has any questions. I have a degree in Film Criticism from a University, and it's mainly useless except for dinner table conversation.

I highly recommend the writings of Russian filmmakers if this topic interests you. Dziga Vertov has written some, especially on theories of the Cine Eye. But I think the big go to guy is [Sergei Eisenstein] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eisenstein), whose writings on film frequently deal with the communist/revolutionary potential of cinema. He is very interested in how Cinema can create a "class consciousness," which I think have very interesting implications. These can be found in [this lovely book here] (http://www.amazon.com/Film-Form-Essays-Theory/dp/0156309203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411361837&sr=8-1&keywords=sergei+eisenstein). (TL/DR: Montage! Montage! Montage!)

It is a great topic because I absolutely believe that film has great unifying potential. Has anyone ever been in a movie theater with a really great audience? (I find Thrillers and Horror Films to be good places to start if you're looking for a connected audience experience.) When an audience and the film are all synced up, it is an incredible feeling. Documentaries are also really good for this if you want to feel a politically charged/activist experience in the theater. (This is what Vertov will say in the Cine-Eye article, but without calling it "documentary.")

The thing to keep in mind with these authors is that they were also dealing with Silence, which is something I don't think we readily factor in when we have discussion about film's unifying potential. We'd like to think that a "good revolutionary film" is all cannons and brass instruments. These authors challenge us to think about what the image and composition of the film can do to create a "group consciousness" in the theater.

Really rich subject here!

First off, people need to stop referring to executives, people in acquisitions, and film programmers as "Hollywood" (even though I am about to do the same for lack of a better word at the moment).

Now Hollywood's main goal is simply to create profitable tentpole films. Tentpole films are franchises (LOTR, Harry Potter, etc.) that are used to drive profit to their ancillary markets (toys, clothes, games, etc.).

Now we need to delve into the notion of what makes a film creative in the first place. For many people, it can be argued that the story is what, first and foremost, drives a movie. A couple years ago at SIGGRAPH, a Disney executive stated that tenpole films do not need a great story to be profitable. And to a certain extent, this is true.

However, people consume information in a different way than we used to. The majority of media on film and television are designed to entertain our short term memory. It is rare that you see a shot that lasts more than 5 seconds on screen. We become so accustomed to a fast-paced editing which is changing the way we consume information. Take a look at this shot from Touch of Evil and compare it to a movie you recently watched (Of course there are exceptions to everything). All this is doing to the audience is providing you with a montage of emotion with no real understanding of why this emotion is necessary. Very Eisenstein in many ways. What I am trying to get at here is that tenpole films are designed to give you a heightened sense of reality in order to please our base emotions.

Hollywood, or I should say tentpole films, are not responsible for telling a compelling story, capturing your imagination, or doing anything remotely new or creative. They exist to provide you with the familiar. That is not to say that tentpole films can't be both familiar and creative.

Quentin Tarantino once commented (paraphrased) that many filmmakers eventually become producers, but rather than producing, they should become distributors. If you want good content, you not only have to make it yourself...you have to distribute it as well.

Certainly it is hard to do this when you are overshadowed by the Hollywood industry who already has millions to work with.... but it's possible... good luck creative filmmakers!

*edit: typo

Learn from the best